P
- Status
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Sister Prejean’s book Death Of Innocents
*
How in error was her booK?
*
(a) “FOR GOOD REASON, JOE O’DELL IS ON DEATH ROW”
scholar(DOT)lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950728/07210224.htm
*
quote: “The DNA report commissioned by O’Dell and his lawyers actually corroborates O’Dell’s guilt. There is a three-probe DNA match indicating that the bloodstains on O’Dell’s clothing is indeed consistent with the victim Helen Schartner’s DNA as well as her blood type and enzyme factors.” “There is certainly no truth to O’Dell’s accusation that evidence was suppressed or witnesses intimidated by the prosecution.”
*
(b) “Sabine district attorney disputes author’s claims in book”
www(DOT)shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS01/501240328/1060
*
quote: “I don’t know whether she is deliberately trying to mislead the public or if she’s being mislead by others. But she’s wrong,”
District Atty. Burkett, dburkett(AT)cp-tel.net
(c) Hardly The Death Of Innocents: Sister Prejean tells it like it wasn’t – Joseph O’Dell
by Rush Wickes - Virginians United Against Crime
*
In lionizing convicted murderer Joseph O’Dell as being an innocent man railroaded to his 1997 execution by Virginia prosecutors, Sister Helen Prejean presents a skewed summary of the case to bolster her anti-death penalty agenda. While she is a gifted speaker, she is out of her element when it comes to “telling it as it was” in these cases.
*
Prejean got to walk with O’Dell into the death chamber at Greensville Correctional Center on July 22, 1997. However, she wasn’t in Virginia Beach some 12 years earlier when he committed the crime for which he was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death. That is where the real demon was evident, not the sweet talking condemned con-man that she met behind bars. O’Dell was, in the words of then Virginia Beach Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Albert Alberi (case prosecutor), one of the most savage, dangerous criminals he had encountered in a two decade career.
*
Indeed,O’Dell had spent most of his adult life incarcerated for various crimes since the age of 13 in the mid-1950’s. At the time of the Schartner murder in Virginia, O’Dell had been recently paroled from Florida where he had been serving a 99 year sentence for a 1976 Jacksonville abduction that almost ended in a murder of the female victim (had not police arrived) in the back of his car.
*
The circumstances of that crime were almost identical to those surrounding Schartner’s murder. The victim of the Florida case even showed up in Virginia to testify at the trial.** Scarcely a mention of this case is made in the Prejean book.
*
Briefly, let me outline some of the facts about the case: Victim Helen Schartner’s blood was found on the passenger seat of Joseph O’Dell’s vehicle. Tire tracks matching those on O’Dell’s vehicle were found at the scene where Miss Schartner’s body was found. The tire tread design on O’Dell’s vehicle wheels were so unique, an expert in tire design couldn’t match them in a manual of thousands of other tire treads. The seminal fluids found on the victim’s body matched those of Mr. O’Dell and pubic hairs of the victim were found on the floor of his car.
*
The claims that O’Dell was “denied” his opportunity to present new DNA evidence on appeals were frivolous. In fact, he had every opportunity to come forward with this evidence, but his lawyers refused to reveal to the court the full findings of the tests which they had arranged to be done on a shirt with blood stains, which O’Dell’s counsel claimed might show did not have the blood marks from the defendant or the victim.
*
Manipulative defense lawyer tactics were overlooked by Prejean in her narrative.* O’Dell was far from a victim of poor counsel.* As matter of fact, the city of Virginia Beach and state government gave O’Dell an estimated $100,000 for his defense team at trial.* This unprecedented amount nearly bankrupted the entire indigent defense fund for the state. He had great lawyers, expert forensic investigators and every point at the trial was contested two to five times.
*
There was no “rush to justice” in this case.
*
O’Dell’s alibi for the night of Schartner’s murder was that he had gotten thrown out of the bar where he encountered Schartner following a brawl. However, none of the several dozen individuals supported his contention - there weren’t any fights that night. Rather, several saw Miss Schartner getting into O’Dell’s car on what would be her last ride.
*
But Prejean would want us to believe the claims of felon Joseph O’Dell.He had three trips to the United States Supreme Court and the “procedural error” which Prejean claims ultimately doomed him was the result of simple ignorance of basic appeals rules by his lawyers.
*
Nothing in the record ever suggested that Joseph O’Dell, two time killer and rapist, was anything but guilty of the murder of Helen Schartner.
*
Justice was properly served.
*
*
How in error was her booK?
*
(a) “FOR GOOD REASON, JOE O’DELL IS ON DEATH ROW”
scholar(DOT)lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950728/07210224.htm
*
quote: “The DNA report commissioned by O’Dell and his lawyers actually corroborates O’Dell’s guilt. There is a three-probe DNA match indicating that the bloodstains on O’Dell’s clothing is indeed consistent with the victim Helen Schartner’s DNA as well as her blood type and enzyme factors.” “There is certainly no truth to O’Dell’s accusation that evidence was suppressed or witnesses intimidated by the prosecution.”
*
(b) “Sabine district attorney disputes author’s claims in book”
www(DOT)shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS01/501240328/1060
*
quote: “I don’t know whether she is deliberately trying to mislead the public or if she’s being mislead by others. But she’s wrong,”
District Atty. Burkett, dburkett(AT)cp-tel.net
(c) Hardly The Death Of Innocents: Sister Prejean tells it like it wasn’t – Joseph O’Dell
by Rush Wickes - Virginians United Against Crime
*
In lionizing convicted murderer Joseph O’Dell as being an innocent man railroaded to his 1997 execution by Virginia prosecutors, Sister Helen Prejean presents a skewed summary of the case to bolster her anti-death penalty agenda. While she is a gifted speaker, she is out of her element when it comes to “telling it as it was” in these cases.
*
Prejean got to walk with O’Dell into the death chamber at Greensville Correctional Center on July 22, 1997. However, she wasn’t in Virginia Beach some 12 years earlier when he committed the crime for which he was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death. That is where the real demon was evident, not the sweet talking condemned con-man that she met behind bars. O’Dell was, in the words of then Virginia Beach Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Albert Alberi (case prosecutor), one of the most savage, dangerous criminals he had encountered in a two decade career.
*
Indeed,O’Dell had spent most of his adult life incarcerated for various crimes since the age of 13 in the mid-1950’s. At the time of the Schartner murder in Virginia, O’Dell had been recently paroled from Florida where he had been serving a 99 year sentence for a 1976 Jacksonville abduction that almost ended in a murder of the female victim (had not police arrived) in the back of his car.
*
The circumstances of that crime were almost identical to those surrounding Schartner’s murder. The victim of the Florida case even showed up in Virginia to testify at the trial.** Scarcely a mention of this case is made in the Prejean book.
*
Briefly, let me outline some of the facts about the case: Victim Helen Schartner’s blood was found on the passenger seat of Joseph O’Dell’s vehicle. Tire tracks matching those on O’Dell’s vehicle were found at the scene where Miss Schartner’s body was found. The tire tread design on O’Dell’s vehicle wheels were so unique, an expert in tire design couldn’t match them in a manual of thousands of other tire treads. The seminal fluids found on the victim’s body matched those of Mr. O’Dell and pubic hairs of the victim were found on the floor of his car.
*
The claims that O’Dell was “denied” his opportunity to present new DNA evidence on appeals were frivolous. In fact, he had every opportunity to come forward with this evidence, but his lawyers refused to reveal to the court the full findings of the tests which they had arranged to be done on a shirt with blood stains, which O’Dell’s counsel claimed might show did not have the blood marks from the defendant or the victim.
*
Manipulative defense lawyer tactics were overlooked by Prejean in her narrative.* O’Dell was far from a victim of poor counsel.* As matter of fact, the city of Virginia Beach and state government gave O’Dell an estimated $100,000 for his defense team at trial.* This unprecedented amount nearly bankrupted the entire indigent defense fund for the state. He had great lawyers, expert forensic investigators and every point at the trial was contested two to five times.
*
There was no “rush to justice” in this case.
*
O’Dell’s alibi for the night of Schartner’s murder was that he had gotten thrown out of the bar where he encountered Schartner following a brawl. However, none of the several dozen individuals supported his contention - there weren’t any fights that night. Rather, several saw Miss Schartner getting into O’Dell’s car on what would be her last ride.
*
But Prejean would want us to believe the claims of felon Joseph O’Dell.He had three trips to the United States Supreme Court and the “procedural error” which Prejean claims ultimately doomed him was the result of simple ignorance of basic appeals rules by his lawyers.
*
Nothing in the record ever suggested that Joseph O’Dell, two time killer and rapist, was anything but guilty of the murder of Helen Schartner.
*
Justice was properly served.
*
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I don’t think that there is any question but that in some cases there is no alternative but to execute an individual. And the state certainly does have that right.
However, the case cited above is atypical. Florida has never been a paragon of criminal justice.
The Supreme Court had to rule on the right to an attorney because of the case of Gideon v. Wainwright There was a movie made about that case in 1980 which starred Henry Fonda.
The case above shows the squirrelly way that justice is served in Florida…and luckily they no longer offer parole. Today, he’d never have been released to commit another crime.
I agree that he no doubt “played” Sr. Prejean, but this is not the best case for a DP discussion, since had the Florida system worked the way it should Virginia would never have had to deal with him.
This case does show that had Florida carried out it’s original (and non-lethal) sentence this man would likely not have had to be executed, and his final victim would have been safe. IMO, this validates (to some degree) the case the Church makes for incarceration instead of the DP.
However, the case cited above is atypical. Florida has never been a paragon of criminal justice.
The Supreme Court had to rule on the right to an attorney because of the case of Gideon v. Wainwright There was a movie made about that case in 1980 which starred Henry Fonda.
The case above shows the squirrelly way that justice is served in Florida…and luckily they no longer offer parole. Today, he’d never have been released to commit another crime.
I agree that he no doubt “played” Sr. Prejean, but this is not the best case for a DP discussion, since had the Florida system worked the way it should Virginia would never have had to deal with him.
This case does show that had Florida carried out it’s original (and non-lethal) sentence this man would likely not have had to be executed, and his final victim would have been safe. IMO, this validates (to some degree) the case the Church makes for incarceration instead of the DP.
T
Teflon93
Guest
What precisely was dead wrong? The average length of actual time served for murder convictions? The reasoning that to the extent that perception of a revolving door justice system grows so too will support for the death penalty?
I didn’t say anything about prison ministries, which I wholeheartedly support. Nor did I say anything about the relative length of sentence going up or down over time (I don’t know if sentences are lengthening or shortening). Nor did I say anything about murder rates overall (here in Charlotte they’re up; no idea about national trends).
I was simply responding to the notion that the death penalty was unnecessary to protect human life in this day and age. I think that would be true if murderers actually served long or life sentences or if prison ministeries were allowed to truly rehabilitate murderers and parole boards could clearly discern this. That is clearly not true today.
Consider that death row truly is “the worst of the worst”—every other murderer with reasonably competent representation has ample opportunity to plea the death penalty away. Take away death row, and the likelihood that these murderers will walk the streets again and murder someone else goes up.
Let’s not overstate the number of executions, either—most death row prisoners spend long stretches of time there while their appeals work out.
Why not shut the revolving door before doing away with the death penalty so as not to lose its deterrent or practical value? Or do you doubt that we’re simply releasing unrepentant and unrehabilitated murderers back on the streets again in large numbers?
If we really want to get rid of the death penalty, having an effective means to protect the innocent from the evil would surely sway more people our way.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Your point is well taken and reasonable Teflon. Between the two of us I suspect we have made a balanced case. 
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
The Bible wasn’t written in Elizabethan English. Murder, as I understand, is a more accurate translation.
Even so, we can and should extrapolate that the commandment refers to the killing of human beings, because there are numerous references to the killing of animals in the Bible – both as sacrifices and for food.
By your rationale, we sin when we swat a mosquito or scrub the mildew out of our showers.
Peace,
Dante
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What is your justification for insinuating others (I assume you mean me) only see things “all black and white?”
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Church Militant:
I disagree that between the two of you the case has been balanced.
Teflon, about your comment on the deterrant value of the death penalty: it has been my understanding that the death penalty has no deterrant value. In fact one of the primary reasons that the death penalty was abolished in Canada in the late sixties by means of Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill was that studies showed that the death penalty has no deterrant value.
Teflon, also let’s assume that it can be proven that the death penalty does have a deterrant value, I just need you to clarify how that deterrant value would work. My concern is that if it is used as an empty threat and never carried out where warranted (if warranted), then the deterrant value goes way down. Would you not agree with this?
Church Militant, I do agree that to change someone’s behaviour we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to change his/her heart. To do that, there needs to be a greatly enlarged Church presence in the prison system.
There are a few questions which remain unanswered for me.
- For those violent criminals who do experience a spiritual conversion, what do we do with them? Release them? If so, with what safeguards that they do not backslide? Our Reformer brothers and sisters believe that Once Saved Always Saved. But we Catholics believe that Once Saved Sometimes Backslid and in Need of Confession.
- For those violent criminals who do not experience a spiritual conversion, what safeguards are in place to prevent them from killing prison guards, medics or from contracting to have folks on the ‘outside’ killed?
- In the event of a violent criminal re-offending while in prison, who is going to explain to the family of the victim why we did not protect their loved one?
For me, before we can legitimately say that we have a ‘balanced’ response, these questions need to be answered. I look forward to your responses, Teflon and CM. Thank you.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
At least 10 US studies have come out since 2001, finding for deterrence.Teflon, about your comment on the deterrant value of the death penalty: it has been my understanding that the death penalty has no deterrant value. In fact one of the primary reasons that the death penalty was abolished in Canada in the late sixties by means of Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill was that studies showed that the death penalty has no deterrant value.
The criticism of those studies has, so far, been soundly rebutted.
This is not surprising.
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I am just wondering how grey things look from the point of view of the victim of a violent prisoner. I am assuming that life and death looks pretty black and white from where he/she stands. Am I wrong about this?
T
Teflon93
Guest
The death penalty has absolute deterrent value in the sense that dead murderers cannot murder again. You raise a related but unnecessary aspect of deterrence—whether OTHER potential murderers refrain from murder because the death penalty exists. The jury’s out on that one, but let’s also keep in mind that murderers who don’t fear Hell won’t be deterred either (thus limiting the benefit of prison ministries to those who can be converted).I disagree that between the two of you the case has been balanced.
Teflon, about your comment on the deterrant value of the death penalty: it has been my understanding that the death penalty has no deterrant value. In fact one of the primary reasons that the death penalty was abolished in Canada in the late sixties by means of Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill was that studies showed that the death penalty has no deterrant value.
Teflon, also let’s assume that it can be proven that the death penalty does have a deterrant value, I just need you to clarify how that deterrant value would work. My concern is that if it is used as an empty threat and never carried out where warranted (if warranted), then the deterrant value goes way down. Would you not agree with this?
Church Militant, I do agree that to change someone’s behaviour we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to change his/her heart. To do that, there needs to be a greatly enlarged Church presence in the prison system.
There are a few questions which remain unanswered for me.
- For those violent criminals who do experience a spiritual conversion, what do we do with them? Release them? If so, with what safeguards that they do not backslide? Our Reformer brothers and sisters believe that Once Saved Always Saved. But we Catholics believe that Once Saved Sometimes Backslid and in Need of Confession.
- For those violent criminals who do not experience a spiritual conversion, what safeguards are in place to prevent them from killing prison guards, medics or from contracting to have folks on the ‘outside’ killed?
- In the event of a violent criminal re-offending while in prison, who is going to explain to the family of the victim why we did not protect their loved one?
For me, before we can legitimately say that we have a ‘balanced’ response, these questions need to be answered. I look forward to your responses, Teflon and CM. Thank you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Oh thanks for this. I had forgotten to post my thought that the spiritual conversion of violent prisoners is not a mechanistic concept. Violent prisoners have the choice about whether or not to repent and turn their souls over to to God.
And then there are those violent prisoners who are not rational: psychopaths, sociopaths, folks who have various kinds of psychiatric disorders and who can’t stop themselves from doing certain things which sometimes result in violent crimes.
- What do we do with folks who do not have any choice in the matter of reoffending or not?
- What do we do with folks who do have a choice in the matter of reoffending, but choose to reoffend?
- What I mean is How do we protect the innocent from being predated by some violent prisoners?
W
whatevergirl
Guest
No, you’re right about that statement. Totally right.
I think that a case can be made for removing someone out of society who is a violent threat–as actually being merciful to him/her, and in essence merciful and fair to others who would be saved from having to be in harm’s way–where you will find others who say that removing someone from society permanently as a way of punishment, would not be merciful. So–there are two sides to the whole argument, but what will end up happening for our society’s future is left to be seen.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Thank you. The death sentence is still prudential. Anyone care to apply the principle of double effect? I would, but my eyelids are sticking together and I think I need a nap. If folks don’t know where to find this principle, I posted it on a thread on Truman and Hiroshima and Nagasaki two years ago. You can enter Truman and Hiroshima in the search window and voila!
Which reminds me, H&N season is coming up. Vern, are you ready?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Cocked and locked.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I didn’t say I agree with either theory…I just posted that one can see both sides of the coin.
D
dominikus28
Guest
If a teaching is prudential, it isn’t sin to oppose it, but if it is infallible then it is?
Pope John XXIII, I believe, once said that he is not infallible and he never speaks ex cathedra. The last and current pope have realeased documents but have not decleared them infallible. So this means that they could be wrong.
Explain?
Pope John XXIII, I believe, once said that he is not infallible and he never speaks ex cathedra. The last and current pope have realeased documents but have not decleared them infallible. So this means that they could be wrong.
Explain?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I gave you a link already.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Of course one can see both sides of the coin. That is why I asked if anyone would like to apply the principle of double effect.I didn’t say I agree with either theory…I just posted that one can see both sides of the coin.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
- Status